It is definitely a big improvement over the 24-105 (never loved that lens for anything except the zoom range) but that is alot to pay for an f/4 lens. This is much more expensive than even the 70-200 f/4 IS and really, the build quality of the 70-200 is WAY better.

I personally haven't used it, but even for the price, I believe it is worth it.

For me, it seems the aperture doesn't matter for this lens, there is something else.

The hybrid is is amazing, I have it in my 100mm l macro.

Also, it does macro.

And also cano bumped up the price, because they had to shave down the lens to put it in that small package. A lot of architecture went into the lens.

If I want a 24-70, I'll go for this lens over the old f2.8. But also, the tamron is an option, or if you can't justify the price, look at the sigma 24-70's. the new one is the canon 24-70 f4 size, and the old is huge, but cheap.

It is definitely a big improvement over the 24-105 (never loved that lens for anything except the zoom range) but that is alot to pay for an f/4 lens. This is much more expensive than even the 70-200 f/4 IS and really, the build quality of the 70-200 is WAY better.

Just curious, what don't you like about the 24-105?

The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.

The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.

From what I've read, the new 24-70 F4 has better IQ than all the standard zooms except the 24-70 F2.8 II. It also has the least distortion of all the standard zooms. And then there's the hybrid IS which I'm sure even without the hybrid feature would be slightly improved over the 105. So add that to the advantages of the new 24-70, then you can decide if it's worth the extra $400-500.

For me it is not worth the price premium (especially considering the 105 is only $700 bundled with the 6D), but it is clearly a better lens than the 24-105 in every way except zoom range so I know for some people it will be worth it.

The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.

.The 24-70 was definitely sharper than the 24-105mm lens. My 24-105 looks OK in the center but the corners are nasty. I just expect better from an f/4 lens. It's a new lens too, just got it several months ago as the kit lens in my 5D3, but I just don't find it particularly sharp. As a result, it is my "try to never use this" lens and while I pull it out sometimes for the flexibility, i'm always trying to find a reason to pull out a f/2.8 zoom or a prime. Even so, I don't know if I would sell a 24-105 for the new 24-70 f/4 IS unless I wanted the macro abilities. But I would consider moving to the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. I'm doing some side by side testing now and will report the results hopefully this weekend.

Logged

MrCDE

Hello. I have this lens, as of last week. It was a close call between this and the 24-105. I can tell you that I am very impressed with the build and IS. I find the IS to be a solid improvement over the 24-105, which i have also used in the past. Picture quality on my 6D is impressive and all I can say is that I am happy with the image quality and colour saturation. Yes it is expensive but I see this as a longterm keep and you pay for what you get with the mighty Red Ring!Macro works surprisingly well and is a novel addition to the lens which will come in handy seeing as I do not own any macro lenses.The size and weight fits well on the 6D as a good 'all round lens' for travel.

My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.

My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.

I've got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well so i'll have a comparison review up shortly. So far, the Canon does focus faster than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still very accurate which is what matters the most. But i'll have a detailed review up shortly. You don't get the macro abilities with the Tamron either which may influence some people but for me, i'd prefer having a 2.8 lens any day to a macro. I wish Canon made a 24-70 f/2.8 IS.

My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.

I've got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well so i'll have a comparison review up shortly. So far, the Canon does focus faster than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still very accurate which is what matters the most. But i'll have a detailed review up shortly. You don't get the macro abilities with the Tamron either which may influence some people but for me, i'd prefer having a 2.8 lens any day to a macro. I wish Canon made a 24-70 f/2.8 IS.

Don't you have to be extremely close for the macro to even work? Seems like an excuse to charge more IMHO. I am with you though 2.8 trumps macro for me. Happy owner of a tamron here. The 2.8 canon while great is just silly money when it has no IS. Im also Looking forward to more reviews of the tamron 70-200, looks to be very close to the canon which would be pretty remarkable.

TDP has published ISO 12233 crops for the 24-70 f/4 IS. Bryan also published a preliminary review. Corners are sharp wide open compared to the 24-105 and the results compare favorably throughout its range:

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.

ETA: I dunno, if this is supposed to be the 24-105 replacement/upgrade, to be giving up the 71-105mm range and pay 2x the price I would have expected big improvement across the ENTIRE 24-70mm range. Unless one needs the macro and shoots exclusively at 24mm, may as well stick with the 24-105 (or save a few bucks and get the 24-105)

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.

Interesting... I didn't notice that. As you said it's particularly interesting to note the performance of the 24-70 f/4 IS at 50 compared to the 24-105 at 24.